On 12-11-02 06:11 PM, Matthew Brush wrote:
On 12-11-02 07:46 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
hi;
On 2 November 2012 14:15, Tal Hadad wrote:
First, there were an old project called GTask[0], which tried to give
parallelism ability and
alternative to today GIO async(I think it wasn't exist back than
On 12-11-02 07:46 AM, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
hi;
On 2 November 2012 14:15, Tal Hadad wrote:
First, there were an old project called GTask[0], which tried to give
parallelism ability and
alternative to today GIO async(I think it wasn't exist back than).
this is inconsequential: GTask was abus
On 11/02/2012 07:15 AM, Tal Hadad wrote:
> First, there were an old project called GTask[0], which tried to give
> parallelism ability and
> alternative to today GIO async(I think it wasn't exist back than).
> At first, I thought, what? Gtask has been merged with GIO
I wrote GTask (and Iris), and
On 11/02/2012 10:15 AM, Tal Hadad wrote:
> First, there were an old project called GTask[0]
Yes, but people building on top of glib shouldn't use a plain "G" prefix
in their names... we can't just let everyone with an ftp server be able
to "steal" potential names from us.
> But the real problem i
hi;
On 2 November 2012 14:15, Tal Hadad wrote:
> Hey. I'm new to this list.
> I've joined the list because something that really bug me with GIO:
> I've seen the big improvement that have been invested in GTask.
> The API is good, but the name GTask is BAD.
>
> First, there were an old project ca
Hey. I'm new to this list.
I've joined the list because something that really bug me with GIO:
I've seen the big improvement that have been invested in GTask.
The API is good, but the name GTask is BAD.
First, there were an old project called GTask[0], which tried to give
parallelism ability and
